It's always bothered me that 3 votes to surrender loses to 2 votes to not surrender. It's basic math. 3 is a majority vote when there are only 5 players on a team.
While I don't like to surrender, I don't want to deny the 3 players who wish to forfeit simply because my friend and I like to fight to the bitter end.
Truly Prideful4 votes60% is a failing grade. Also, I'd rather not have every 3-man decide when my game gets to end. 4 to surrender is fine.
Seudonym1 votesShould a 2-man get to decide it continues?
Truly Prideful4 votesSure, as should two randoms. The game shouldn't end because someone in a trio is crying about going 0/3 to start the game so their buddies just surrender. I've seen enough trios try to bully their way to a surrender already, rather not give them all of the power.
Seudonym1 votesTo be clear, you're saying that the group with fewer numbers decides for the team? Should 2 people be able to bully the rest into playing? Does this make sense anywhere? The matchmaking system doesn't elect political figures to represent each team.
It's not as though the vote can happen at any point. There's a 20 minute wait and an additional delay after a vote begins. 20 minutes is enough time to get a sense of how the game is going, and a come back is always possible, but continuing shouldn't be decided by the minority. If the game ends, players can play another or not. If the game continues, everyone is in until the end possibly against their will.
The game shouldn't continue because a duo is hopelessly optimistic. I've been IN of enough duos who have this ability to force the team to continue because we have the power to.
Truly Prideful1 votesYou misunderstand. I'm not argueing for playing hopeless games. I am however against surrendering when down a turret and 5 kills because my trio said it was "gg".
Seudonym1 votesMy argument is not about the state of the match or the players involved. It's that 2 votes wins over 3.
Truly Prideful1 votesThen why bring it up as part of your arguement? Riot will never make 3/2 the surrender vote because they care about both sides. 3/2 is essentially 3/10. "Blah, blah, enemy team doesn't count in your forfeit" - This is Riot's game and it counts in their game. Most games wouldn't go beyond the 20 minute mark if 3/2 was the condition. Hell, half of the good comeback games come after failed surrenders because the people stick it out.
I'm definitely on Riot's side here, I'd rather not just simulate the early game repeatedly because one side always quits the game.
Seudonym1 votesI bring it up because it's what people seem to focus on, "3-man premade bullying for surrender" what gets me is that those who make this argument don't seem to consider that a 2-man has this same power in the opposite direction.
If a team surrendering is considered for both sides why don't both teams get a vote? The forfeit vote, and the permission to forfeit vote.
As I mentioned earlier, I am all for playing the game to the end. I avoid surrendering as much as I can. However, when I am playing with one friend I know that our team never will, because somehow our 2 votes have greater weight than the rest of the team. This is hardly fair.
All I want is balance.
Stained Spear2 votes1 man has the right to continue playing please correct 4=1. Should be all 5 imo.
Seudonym3 votesA player has the right to vote to continue. When the votes are tallied, 2 players should not have to right to force 3 to play a game they do not want to continue.
Stained Spear1 votesA player has the right to vote to continue. When the votes are tallied, 2 players should not have to right to force 3 to play a game they do not want to continue.
nobody is forcing them to continue playing, afk if they want to i dont care im going to win regardless.
Seudonym2 votesThat is force when the alternative is a punishable action.
If rules are adjusted so if players who voted to surrender are free to abandon the game without fear of punishment, then that would effectively nullify the purpose for the vote.
LostFr0st1 votesIt's made so that you need 66% of the vote on your team to surrender. That's actually technically only 4/10 players in the game. Two players can carry a game, thus the need for 4 yes/5 to surrender. This is even more important due to the new dynamic queue, since groups of 3 are common.
Seudonym1 votesI'd wager that groups of 2 or even more common. I understand that there's a decided % requirement in place. My issue is that a majority vote is beaten by the minority opinion.
Following a percentage system, a change of only 6% to 60% would make sense with only 5 votes.
LostFr0st2 votesYou're not thinking about the other set of 5 which are playing the game. It's already barely a minority vote. 4/10 With queue times as they are I'm sure some would like to stay in game for the whole game.
Seudonym1 votesThe opposing team doesn't get a vote, ergo are not relevant. In any competition which would allow an early forfeit, the opposition's opinion on the matter doesn't factor.
More over, I think they can cope with the game's early finish with the victory they've likely earned.
LostFr0st3 votesOk, here's a different view on it then: you have two that want to /ff, one on the fence, and two that say no so that's 40% yes 20% maybe and 40% no Technically that's 50% yes/no but that one person now decides the outcome with their vote. Right now that person gets to stay on the fence, with the new 3=ff the person no longer gets a real choice, they must vote no in order to keep mulling over their decision because part of him doesn't want to /ff and wants to keep playing.
Seudonym1 votesThat's well stated. However, it implies that there is no swing vote in the current system. 3 yes, 1 no, 1 on the fence, the one on the fence still decides if the game continues or ends.
With 3=ff the majority of players decide the outcome.
LostFr0st2 votesBut the system can't know if that person is a swing or not, thus our problem. If it's 3-1-1 then it's up to the three to convince that person to /ff instead of strong-arming it. If they give a logical (non-raging) explanation it's usually not that hard.
Seudonym1 votesThe system doesn't have to know the swing voter, all it has to do is tally the votes and decide which side has the greater number.
Inversely, it takes only two to strong-arm the team into playing a game they want to surrender.
LostFr0st1 votesI think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. The discussion isn't really going anywhere anymore.
All we know is that when they made the surrender vote option they tuned it for 70% of the team must vote 'yes.' http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com/wiki/Surrendering Maybe they found that it subconsciously promoted /ffing and thus ended more games too early IDK, but they also tuned down the /ff timers to 20 mins from 25 on SR the same patch.
Seudonym2 votesSeems it has reached it's end. I appreciate the integrity you've shown here.
I will have to resume my crusade at a later date as these reply boxes are getting very small now.
Oleandervine2 votesI agree that a majority of the votes should win. I've been in games where there are 2 friends on a team, both being miserable team players and enjoying being a pain in everyone's ass, and the whole game is lost by 15 minutes in. But when the time to surrender rolls around, these two trolls can effectively force me to play with their incredibly corrosive gameplay for another 30 minutes because 2 people get to choose that I have to keep the game going. Requiring a 4/5 vote to quit is just ridiculous.
Reaper Soraka1 votesI think in Hexakill you need 5/1. It's like a 70% majority requirement or so.